Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lenfant, Louis; Canlorbe, Geoffroy; Belghiti, Jérémie; Kreaden, Usha Seshadri; Hebert, April E; Nikpayam, Marianne; Uzan, Catherine; Azaïs, Henri.
Afiliação
  • Lenfant L; Department of Urology, Academic Hospital Pitié-Salpêtrière, APHP, Sorbonne Université, 75013, Paris, France.
  • Canlorbe G; Department of Surgery and Oncological Gynecology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
  • Belghiti J; Department of Surgery and Oncological Gynecology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
  • Kreaden US; Department of Surgery and Oncological Gynecology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
  • Hebert AE; Biostatistics & Global Evidence Management, Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
  • Nikpayam M; Biostatistics & Global Evidence Management, Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA.
  • Uzan C; Department of Surgery and Oncological Gynecology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
  • Azaïs H; Department of Surgery and Oncological Gynecology, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
J Robot Surg ; 17(6): 2647-2662, 2023 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37856058
ABSTRACT
The potential benefits and limitations of benign hysterectomy surgical approaches are still debated. We aimed at evaluating any differences with a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were last searched on 6/2/2021 to identify English randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort and retrospective independent database studies published between Jan 1, 2010 and Dec 31, 2020 reporting perioperative outcomes following robotic hysterectomy versus laparoscopic, open, or vaginal approach (PROSPERO #CRD42022352718). Twenty-four articles were included that reported on 110,306 robotic, 262,715 laparoscopic, 189,237 vaginal, and 554,407 open patients. The robotic approach was associated with a shorter hospital stay (p < 0.00001), less blood loss (p = 0.009), and fewer complications (OR 0.42 [0.27, 0.66], p = 0.0001) when compared to the open approach. The main benefit compared to the laparoscopic and vaginal approaches was a shorter hospital (R/L WMD - 0.144 [- 0.21, - 0.08], p < 0.0001; R/V WMD - 0.39 [- 0.70, - 0.08], p = 0.01). Other benefits seen were sensitive to the inclusion of database studies. Study type differences in outcomes, a lack of RCTs for robotic vs. open comparisons, learning curve issues, and limited robotic vs. vaginal publications are limitations. While the robotic approach was mainly comparable to the laparoscopic approach, this meta-analysis confirms the classic benefits of minimally invasive surgery when comparing robotic hysterectomy to open surgery. We also reported the advantages of robotic surgery over vaginal surgery in a patient population with a higher incidence of large uterus and prior surgery.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Robótica / Laparoscopia / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Robótica / Laparoscopia / Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Robóticos Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article